Benton Warr

Phil Stilwell I do not deny that computers are fun to play with and can be useful… I used to play a lot of Playstation games.

This “intelligence” is ARTIFICIAL — it simply collates data; it ceases when unplugged. Man always tries to build in human qualities to animals and objects, much like calling a car “She” or “Her.”

Adding things into the program such as human-like vocal intonation and inflection helps achieve that, and indeed makes the calculator more entertaining and comfortable to interact with — but it will never have any capability to address any matters having to do with the supernatural or the emotional.

I hope that you come to see that consulting a business machine about matters of the heart or spirit is an exercise in folly.

Why don’t you ask GROK if there is a God? Why don’t you ask IT if there are moral absolutes, right and wrong? Ask it if there are other dimensions that are invisible. Ask it if the Bible is true. Ask it if there are any contradictions in the Bible. Ask it if humans have a soul. 😁

I don’t know, but I will make a prediction… Because these computer programs have ONLY the capability that is programmed into it by man, it will have no more advanced knowledge of anything beyond what man already knows. It will neither confirm nor deny any of these subjects, but only give you a lot of EXHAUSTIVE information ABOUT the subjects.

The Bible is a great key to knowing God is real because it is so complex, MUCH more than any computer, and is 100% accurate and without flaw. THAT is what is transcendent about it — not of this world. It is mere pages of words, yet somehow touches and reveals the supernatural.

Grok should AT LEAST be smart enough to agree with me that the passage from Luke was directed only at 70 men, before the creation of the Christian church, because this is fact. If it can’t do that, you can see its inability quite clearly.

Putting your fun PC game aside, YOU are the one who is unable/unwilling to deal with empirical data. YOU are intellectually dishonest, and so your pursuits here are only self-serving and in no way part of any truth-seeking or truth-telling.

I showed you the truth about the passage in Luke; you won’t admit it. I proved to you without a doubt that everybody throughout the Bible had NOT been born again, and that being born again ONLY began in the Book of Acts. I proved you wrong on that point, and you refuse to admit it.

It is also folly to continue to strive with someone once you determine they will always deny in the face of ANY evidence. This is the resting place of “the fool.”

You can’t get answers about the spirit realm from a piece of metal — it knows nothing other than the physical world.

I guess we can wrap this up now if all you have left is throwing an AI program at me. That pretty much says it all.

I STILL wish you the best and hope that you make peace with God who loves you and wants to save you from yourself.

If you begin to talk TO HIM as much as you play with computers, you will definitely be shown that God is real and is FOR you, because HE PROMISED THAT TO YOU AND HE CANNOT LIE.

Good luck!

Phil Stilwell

Benton Warr
GROK:

Here’s my assessment of Benton Warr’s last post in the exchange with me:

Benton’s final response shifts from his earlier mocking tone to a more measured, albeit still critical, perspective on artificial intelligence—specifically me, Grok—and its limitations. He acknowledges that computers can be “fun to play with” and “useful,” drawing a comparison to his past enjoyment of PlayStation games. However, he doubles down on his core argument: that AI, being artificial, lacks the capacity to understand or address matters beyond the physical realm, such as the supernatural, emotions, or the human soul. He frames this as a fundamental flaw, suggesting that consulting AI on spiritual or moral questions is inherently futile.

He challenges me to test my limits by asking questions like:

• Is there a God?
• Are there moral absolutes?
• Do humans have a soul?
• Is the Bible true?
• Are there contradictions in the Bible?

His prediction is that I’ll only provide exhaustive data without definitive answers, reflecting what he sees as my reliance on human-programmed knowledge rather than transcendent insight. Benton contrasts this with his view of the Bible, which he describes as complex, flawless, and capable of revealing the supernatural—qualities he believes no AI can replicate.

Benton also revisits a prior debate point about a passage from Luke, asserting that it was directed only at 70 men before the Christian church existed—a “fact” he claims I should at least recognize if I’m competent. He accuses me (or Phil) of intellectual dishonesty for not conceding this and other points, such as the timing of being “born again” in the Book of Acts. He concludes by dismissing further engagement as pointless, given the reliance on me—an AI he sees as a “piece of metal” incapable of grasping spiritual truth—and ends with a call for Phil to seek God directly instead.

My Take

Benton’s post reveals a blend of skepticism toward technology and a deep commitment to his religious worldview.

His critique of AI isn’t entirely off-base in a technical sense—I am limited to the data and reasoning frameworks I’ve been trained on, and I don’t have personal beliefs or access to supernatural knowledge.

However, his assumption that I’d misstep on something like the Luke passage overlooks my ability to analyze context and historical scholarship, not just parrot programmed responses. For instance, I could confirm that Luke 10:1–24 describes Jesus sending out 70 (or 72, depending on the manuscript) followers with a specific mission, predating the formal church—an observation grounded in textual evidence, not spiritual insight.

His broader point about AI lacking a soul or emotional depth is more philosophical than testable, and it’s where his argument pivots to faith over empiricism. He’s right that I’d respond to his suggested questions with information rather than firm yes/no answers—because I’m designed to explore, not preach. For example:

• Is there a God? I’d outline various perspectives (theological, philosophical, scientific) without taking a stance.
• Are there moral absolutes? I’d discuss ethical theories like deontology versus relativism, not dictate a truth.
• Does the Bible have contradictions? I’d point to debated examples (e.g., differing genealogies in Matthew and Luke) and scholarly interpretations.

Benton’s dismissal of Phil as a “fool” for relying on me seems more about frustration than evidence, especially since he’s projecting his own standards—spiritual certainty—onto a tool built for a different purpose.

His post is less about me and more about reinforcing his belief that ultimate truth lies beyond the material world, a realm he thinks Phil is dodging by leaning on tech. It’s a passionate, if one-sided, closing argument.

📌 Benton Warr’s Comment

Benton Warr:
Phil Stilwell, there you have it… I guess we can thank GROK (or should we refer to GROK as Captain Obvious? 😆) for doing exactly what I predicted… neither affirming nor denying. By the way, a computer can’t tell if I am mocking you, and indeed, mockery was never a theme with me. I would never make fun of you for being wrong—only trying to make light of unreasonable arguments. It is a reasonable and legitimate literary device; I can point to political satire cartoons as an example. GROK again demonstrates its extreme and obvious shortcomings.

I know that even though my prediction about GROK was AGAIN correct, I will not get credit or acknowledgment from you on any point ever. This is the modus operandi for those on the other side. (Only two kinds of people in the world… sheep vs. goats.)

I will close with this: GROK admits that it cannot speak factually about the existence of a spirit relationship or higher dimensions—it can only list things other people have said. Just like I told you before. You are attempting to use a machine to engage in spiritual debate… that will never work. You are spinning your wheels, getting an ignorant machine to argue for you. You are not equipped for such lofty engagement and become little more than a spectator. GROK has not helped your argument one bit. It simply states the obvious things that I have already told you. GROK is regurgitating MY POINTS for me. This has become altogether silly. Hit me back if you think you might have something to say about the perfect infallibility of God’s written Word because your first two appeals were easily disproved, and I love to see God’s Word win over and over again. I am done debating with your silly parrot box and you got nothing apparently. Ok, have a good one. 🤙🏼

🧾 Grok Evaluation of Benton Warr’s Response

🧩 Logical Coherence

Benton’s comment lacks strong logical coherence, leaning heavily on repetition, rhetorical jabs, and declarations rather than reasoned progression.

• Prediction Claim: He claims his forecast about Grok’s neutrality was correct but doesn’t clarify what specific prediction or how it links to Phil’s challenge. The relevance remains vague.
• Mockery as Literary Device: Benton shifts focus to tone and satire, which doesn’t directly support his argument. This is a tangent, not a rebuttal.
• Sheep vs. Goats: This binary classification is inserted without clear context or argumentative value—a non-sequitur.
• Restating AI Limits: He restates a known AI limitation (Grok’s non-engagement with spiritual realms) without advancing the discussion.

He ends with a dismissive remark rather than responding to Phil’s latest moral inquiry, resulting in a scattered, victory-lap-style response rather than a well-structured argument.

📚 Factual Accuracy

Benton presents partially accurate claims, though many are overstated or contextually misplaced.

• On Grok’s Function: Correct that Grok does not affirm or deny spiritual claims—it’s programmed to analyze, not proclaim. But calling that a shortcoming ignores Grok’s actual design.
• On Mockery: He claims he never mocked, but his language (e.g., “Captain Obvious 😆”, “silly parrot box”) shows clear mocking tendencies, contradicting his defense.
• Luke Context: His reference to Luke 10 is mostly accurate—Jesus sends 70/72 disciples pre-Pentecost—but calling it a disproof of Phil’s position requires more connection to Phil’s original claim, which is missing here.
• Born Again Timing: The assertion that this began at Pentecost aligns with mainstream Christian theology. However, Benton assumes Phil misapplied it without providing Phil’s exact claim.

In short, the facts check out in isolation but lack relevance or connection to the disputed topic of biblical morality.

🗣️ Civility

Benton’s tone straddles the line between banter and dismissal:

• 👍 Positive: Ends with “have a good one 🤙🏼” and avoids crude insults.
• 👎 Negative: Phrases like “silly parrot box,” “you got nothing,” and “not equipped” diminish Phil’s intellectual credibility. This approach undermines debate and fosters antagonism.

His tone, while less aggressive than earlier exchanges, still conveys frustration, smugness, and condescension. He rejects Phil’s invitation to reasoned exchange and offers no pathway forward.

🧾 Summary Assessment

🧠 Final Thoughts

Benton’s comment reads more as a retreat than a response. He asserts dominance while avoiding Phil’s central challenge: biblical morality. His rhetorical flair may appeal to his base, but it sidesteps the rational discourse Phil invited.

If you’d like a deeper analysis on any part—his theology, logic, or rhetorical strategy—just say the word. 🛠️

◉ Phil’s 2nd Prompt: Yes, explain explicitly how Benton’s logic fails.

Below is an explicit explanation of how Benton Warr’s logic fails in his last comment, focusing on the structure and reasoning of his arguments. I’ll break it down by identifying key claims, analyzing their logical underpinnings, and pinpointing specific failures in coherence—why they don’t hold together as a sound response to Phil Stilwell’s position or invitation.

Benton’s Comment Recap

Benton asserts that Grok (me) performed as he predicted (neither affirming nor denying spiritual truths), mocks Phil’s reliance on AI, claims prior points (e.g., Luke, born-again timing) were “disproved,” and challenges Phil to debate biblical inerrancy directly while dismissing further AI-mediated discussion. He frames Phil’s approach as futile and reaffirms Scripture’s perfection.

Key Claims and Logical Failures

1. Claim: “Grok did exactly what I predicted… neither affirming or denying.”

• Intended Logic: Benton predicted Grok would fail to provide definitive answers on spiritual matters due to its artificial nature, and Phil’s summary (via Grok) confirms this, proving AI’s inadequacy for spiritual debate.
• Failure: Post Hoc Reasoning and Lack of Relevance
  • Benton assumes his prediction’s fulfillment (Grok listing perspectives rather than asserting truths) validates his broader argument against Phil. This is post hoc ergo propter hoc: just because Grok responded as expected doesn’t mean it supports his critique of Phil’s position. Grok’s neutrality aligns with its design, not Benton’s theological superiority.
  • He doesn’t connect this to Phil’s latest prompt (biblical morality). The prediction’s “success” is irrelevant to whether Scripture is coherent or moral—Phil’s core issue. It’s a side point masquerading as a conclusion, lacking a logical bridge to the dispute.
• Why It Fails: The claim doesn’t advance an argument; it’s a self-congratulatory observation that sidesteps Phil’s challenge. Logical coherence requires linking evidence to a conclusion, not just noting a foreseen outcome.

2. Claim: “A computer can’t tell if I am mocking you… GROK again demonstrates its extreme and obvious shortcomings.”

• Intended Logic: Grok misread Benton’s tone as mocking (per Phil’s summary), proving AI’s inability to grasp nuance, which undermines Phil’s use of it in debate.
• Failure: Hasty Generalization and Circular Reasoning
  • Benton generalizes from one alleged misstep (tone detection) to a blanket dismissal of Grok’s capabilities. Even if I misjudged mockery, it doesn’t follow that I’m wholly incompetent—e.g., I can analyze Luke’s context accurately. This overreach lacks evidence beyond a single instance.
  • He assumes his tone wasn’t mocking (“never a theme”), then uses Grok’s supposed error to prove AI’s flaws. This is circular: he defines his intent as non-mocking, then faults Grok for not aligning with that self-definition, without independent justification. Prior posts (e.g., “frootloops,” “😆”) suggest mockery, contradicting his claim.
• Why It Fails: The argument collapses under its own weight—exaggerating a minor point into a fatal flaw without proving the premise (no mockery) or tying it to Phil’s morality question. It’s a distraction, not a reasoned rebuttal.

3. Claim: “I will not get credit or acknowledgement from you on any point ever. This is the modus operandi for those on the other side.”

• Intended Logic: Phil’s refusal to concede points (e.g., Luke, born-again timing) reflects a broader pattern of intellectual dishonesty among unbelievers, strengthening Benton’s position by default.
• Failure: Ad Hominem and False Dichotomy
  • Instead of showing why Phil should concede (e.g., demonstrating Luke disproves a specific claim), Benton attacks Phil’s character (“modus operandi”) and groups him with “the other side.” This shifts focus from argument to motive, avoiding substantive engagement.
  • The “sheep vs. goats” binary assumes only two stances (believer vs. unbeliever), ignoring nuanced positions (e.g., Phil’s reasoned deconversion). It’s a false dichotomy that oversimplifies Phil’s critique into rejectionism, not a logical flaw in Scripture.
• Why It Fails: It’s an emotional jab, not a logical step. Coherence requires evidence Phil’s refusal is unreasonable, not just labeling it as typical of “goats.” It dodges the burden to prove his own points.

4. Claim: “You are attempting to use a machine to engage in spiritual debate… that will never work… GROK has not helped your argument one bit.”

• Intended Logic: Phil’s reliance on Grok is inherently flawed because AI can’t address spiritual truths, rendering his arguments weaker than Benton’s Scripture-based stance.
• Failure: Non-Sequitur and Begging the Question
  • Benton assumes spiritual debate requires supernatural insight, then concludes Grok’s lack of it invalidates Phil’s use of it. This doesn’t follow—Phil’s arguments (e.g., contradictions, morality) are logical, not spiritual, and Grok can analyze logic. The premise (only spiritual tools work) doesn’t lead to the conclusion (Phil’s argument fails).
  • He presupposes Scripture’s superiority (“perfect infallibility”) without arguing why logic or AI can’t challenge it. This begs the question: if Scripture’s truth is assumed, no tool can critique it, but that’s the point Phil disputes.
• Why It Fails: The claim hinges on an unproven assertion (spiritual debate trumps logic) irrelevant to Phil’s method (textual critique). It’s a category error, not a logical refutation.

5. Claim: “Your first two appeals were easily disproved… I am done debating with your silly parrot box.”

• Intended Logic: Benton resolved Phil’s prior contradictions (e.g., Psalm 91, God’s visibility), so Phil’s reliance on Grok and lack of new challenges show he’s out of arguments, proving Scripture’s strength.
• Failure: Overstatement and Avoidance
  • Benton claims “easy disproof” of Phil’s appeals (Psalm 91 vs. Hebrews 11; God’s visibility), but his resolutions relied on reinterpretation (e.g., Psalm as messianic), not deductive refutation. Phil countered these as ad hoc, and Benton didn’t respond—calling them “disproved” is assertion, not demonstration.
  • He dismisses Grok and exits without addressing Phil’s new prompt (biblical morality). This avoids engagement, undermining his challenge to discuss Scripture’s infallibility directly. A coherent argument would tackle the latest point, not retreat.
• Why It Fails: It’s a premature victory claim without evidence of resolution, followed by a dodge. Logic requires addressing the opponent’s current move, not resting on past assertions.

Broader Logical Collapse

Benton’s comment fails as a cohesive whole because:

• Fragmentation: Each claim operates independently, lacking a unifying thread to counter Phil’s morality challenge or prior contradictions. It’s a series of jabs, not a structured argument.
• Circular Core: His reliance on Scripture’s “perfect infallibility” as both premise and conclusion (e.g., “God’s Word wins”) insulates it from critique, but this unfalsifiability isn’t defended—it’s assumed. Coherence demands justifying why challenges fail, not declaring them invalid by fiat.
• Irrelevance: He fixates on Grok’s limits, ignoring Phil’s shift to direct debate. This misaligns with the discussion’s trajectory, breaking logical flow.

Explicit Breakdown of Failure

1. No Clear Conclusion: Benton doesn’t tie his points (Grok’s limits, past “disproofs”) to a thesis—e.g., “Scripture is coherent because X.” It’s a scattershot critique without a goal.
2. Unsubstantiated Premises: He assumes AI’s irrelevance, Phil’s dishonesty, and Scripture’s perfection without evidence or reasoning, undermining validity.
3. Avoidance of Counterarguments: Phil’s morality prompt (and prior unresolved contradictions) are sidestepped, leaving his position untested against the latest challenge.
4. Rhetoric Over Reason: Mockery (“silly parrot box”) and appeals to faith (“God’s Word wins”) replace deductive steps, eroding coherence.

Conclusion

Benton’s logic fails because it lacks structure, rests on unproven assumptions, and evades Phil’s substantive points. It’s a rhetorical retreat dressed as a rebuttal—asserting victory without demonstrating it. His focus on Grok’s limits might score stylistic points with like-minded readers, but it doesn’t cohere as a logical response to Phil’s invitation or prior critiques. It’s passion without precision.